Freedom of religion is enshrined in the Malaysian Constitution.
First, Article 11 provides that every person has the right to profess
and to practice his or her religion and (subject to applicable laws
restricting the propagation of other religions to Muslims) to propagate
it. Second, the Constitution also provides that Islam is the religion of
the country but other religions may be practiced in peace and harmony
(Article 3).

The status of freedom of religion in Malaysia is a controversial issue. Questions including whether Malaysia
is an Islamic state or secular state remains unresolved. In recent
times, there has been a number of contentious issues and incidents which
has tested the relationship between the different races in Malaysia.

Scope of Islamic law in Malaysia

The nation maintains two parallel justice systems in the country (see: Courts of Malaysia). One is the secular justice system based upon laws gazetted by Parliament. The other is sharia (syariah, Islamic law). Ostensibly Syariah Courts
only have jurisdiction over persons who declare themselves to be
Muslims. Consequently, this results in non-Muslims not having legal
standing in Syariah Courts.

Where decisions of the syariah court affect a non-Muslim, he or she
can seek recourse in the secular courts which, in theory, overrule the
syariah courts as the Syariah courts are limited in their jurisdiction
by Article 121 of the Federal constitution. In 2006 a judge ruled that
Article 121 limited the federal courts from ruling on matters ruled on
by the Syariah court when it touches Islamic matters. This was seen as a
misinterpretation of the article by some, and the case is under appeal
in the court of appeals.

The rules of sharia are set by the various sultans of the states. Historically a sultan had absolute authority over the state. Prior to independence, Tunku Abdul Rahman managed to convince the sultans to cede some states' powers to the federal government.
One of the terms of this agreement is that the sultans still are the
ultimate authority of Islamic law in their respective states. The same
arrangement was long held even during British colonial rule.

Constitutionally, one of the four tests for being Malay in Malaysia
is that one must be a Muslim. Therefore, all Malays are considered to
fall under Islamic law. The rationale for this is that Islam is
considered intrinsic to Malay ethnic identity which culturally and
historically under Sultan rule who is a Muslim.

On September 29, 2001, the then Prime Minister, Tun Dr. Mahathir bin Mohamad declared that the country was an Islamic state (negara Islam). The opposition leader at the time, Lim Kit Siang, is now actively seeking support to declare Mahathir's move as unconstitutional by repeatedly clarifying that Malaysia is a secular state
with Islam as its official religion as enshrined in the Constitution.
However, the coalition government headed by Mahathir at the time held
more than two-thirds of the seats in parliament. A two-thirds majority
vote in Parliament is required for constitutional amendments in
Malaysia.

Status of religious freedom

Government in general supports Islamic religious establishment and it
is the official policy to "infuse Islamic values" into the
administration of the country.

However, Sunday which is the Christian traditional holiday is the
official weekend holiday in the Federal Territories and ten out of
thirteen states, unlike practices in Middle Eastern Muslim countries.
The exception are the states of Kedah, Kelantan and Terengganu, where
the weekend falls on Friday and Saturday. Most Muslims in Malaysia
accept this, although some have expressed disquiet since the most holy
period in a Muslim's week is between Thursday evening and Friday
afternoon, when the congregational Jumaat prayer is held. The practice
of having Sunday as the weekend holiday is a departure from traditional
Islamic practices, dating to British colonial days when the British
started bringing in non-Muslim immigrants into the country.

In May 2001, the government decided not to approve the Falun Gong
Preparatory Committee’s application to register as a legal
organization. This action is believed to be more related to the
government's wish to improve relations with China rather than an attempt
to undermine the Falun Gong in favour of Islam. The government has not
prevented Falun Gong members from carrying out their activities in
public.

For Muslim children, religious education according to a
government-approved curriculum is compulsory in public schools. There
are no restrictions on homeschooling, although primary school is compulsory. However, private schools and colleges do have some legal requirements.

Inter-faith efforts in Malaysia

In April 2002, the Human Rights Commission (Suhakam)
initiated an interfaith dialog aimed at promoting better understanding
and respect among the country's different religious groups. Participants
included representatives from the Malaysian Islamic Development
Department, the Malaysian Ulama Association, and the Malaysian
Consultative Council of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism and Sikhism
(MCCBCHS).

In early 2005, much debate was stirred up by a proposed Inter-Faith
Commission put forward by various individuals, some of which included
academics and lawyers from the Bar Council.

The steering committee behind the proposal for a draft bill for the
commission organised a national conference that saw about 200+ people
from all religious backgrounds attending it. There they hashed out the
framework for a commission that could advise the relevant parties on the
many interfaith issues that arise in pluralistic Malaysia such as
conversion from Islam to another faith, which is deemed as apostasy in
Malaysia.

PAS, member of parliament Dzulkefly Ahmad,
stated that he is against religious pluralism saying that it
has,"relativised" truth claims,and says that Islam is the same has other
religions.[3]
Dr.Ahmad went on to make a distinction between promoting relativism of
religions and cooperation with people in a
"multi-racial,multi-religious,multi-cultural, and multi-lingual"
society, and that the latter was necessary to build a strong country.[4]

After much coverage in the local newspapers, the draft bill was put on hold by Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, due to the controversy surrounding it.

Conversion to Islam

Marriage and divorce

A non-Muslim person who wishes to marry a Muslim person must convert
to Islam before the marriage can be recognised as legally valid.[5][6]
A marriage between two non-Muslims (civil law marriages), however, will
not become void after one spouse subsequently converts to Islam.

In 2006, T. Saravanan, a Muslim convert, sought to dissolve his
marriage with his non-Muslim wife via the Syariah Court. His wife, R.
Subashini, applied to Kuala Lumpur High Court for an injunction against
her husband seeking divorce in the Syariah Court. The High Court
dismissed her application. This was affirmed in the Court of Appeal,
where the court also ordered Subashini to take her case to the Syariah
Court. As of September, 2007, their case is pending in the Federal Court
after an appeal by Subashini.[7] Subashini is also seeking to stop or declare void the conversion of their children.[8]
As of 27 December 2007, R. Subashini failed in an attempt to stop her
husband from divorcing her in an Islamic court. She also failed to
persuade the federal court her husband should be banned from converting
their four-year-old son to Islam. The appeal was rejected on a
technicality but court added that she would be able to try again in a
few months.[9]

Voluntary conversion of minors

Conversion to other faiths is allowed in Malaysia once one has
reached an age of majority. A minor may not convert to another faith
without explicit permission of his or her guardian as described in the
Guardianship of Infants Act (1961) and the Federal Constitution
(Articles 11 (1) and 12 (3) and (4)).

This case was tested by Teoh Eng Huat vs Kadhi mot of Pasir Mas Kelantan in 1986.[10]
Teoh Eng Huat's daughter was a ward of the state. She married a Muslim.
Hence then a minor, converted to Islam. The high court ruled that the
father's right to decide the religion and upbringing of the infant is
allowed "subject to the condition that it does not conflict with the
principles of the infant's choice of religion guaranteed to her under
the Federal Constitution". Through the proceedings, Susie Teoh never
appeared in court to testify.

The decision was overruled on appeal to the Supreme Court, who held
"in all the circumstances and in the wider interests of the nation no
infant shall have the automatic right to receive instruction relating to
any other religion other than (her) own without the permission of the
parent or guardian".

The Supreme Court further held that this was "only of academic
interest" as Susie Teoh was no longer a minor at the time of hearing.

In response several states (Islamic laws are passed by individual
states) passed laws providing for conversion by 15 (defined as "baligh"
in Islam or the age of puberty). Federal law still provides for the age
of majority as 18.

Automatic conversion of minors following parental conversion

The state of Selangor passed a legal amendment in 1989 that if an
adult converts to Islam, any infant children become converted at the
same moment. This amendment was quietly removed by its non-inclusion in
future amendments of the state bill.

Conversion of minor by one parent

In the case of Chang Ah Mee v Jbt. Hal Ehwal Agama Islam (2003) heard in the Sabah High Court,[10]
the father converted to Islam and converted the child to Islam without
consent or knowledge of the mother, Chang Ah Mee, on July 28, 1998. The
mother gained custody of the child on Nov 13, 1998 and subsequently sued
to declare the conversion void.

The court determined that as a state court, it had jurisdiction over
all state matters even those concerning Islam. Further, based upon the
Federal Constitution (article 12), The Guardianship of Infants Ordinance
(Sabah) 1999, The Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act, 1976 and The
Administration of Islamic Law Enactment 1992 (Sabah) determined the
conversion of a two year old child to be void.

In 2003, this issue became prominent again in the case of Shamala Sathiyaseelan v Dr. Jeyaganesh C. Mogarajah.[10]
In the first hearing before the High Court, Shamala Sathiyaseelan
sought (1) to bring committal proceedings against the father of the
infants for breach of the interim custody order of the High Court of
April 17, 2003, and (2) to declare that she was not bound by any
decisions, order or proceedings of the syariah court.

Earlier the High Court had granted custody to Shamala Sathiyaseelan
with access for the father. He failed to return the children to her on
May 25, 2003. Shamala and Jeyaganesh were married under Hindu rites
registered under the jurisdiction of the Law Reform Act. The husband
converted to Islam on Nov 19, 2002. On Nov 25, 2002 he converted the
children without the mother's knowledge or consent. They were still not
divorced at the time.

Without knowledge of Shamala he then obtained a custody order in the
syariah court on Jan. 30, 2003. The High Court ruled that the custody
order issued by the syariah court "did not change the interim civil
court order". They ruled that the syariah court order "is not binding on
the plaintiff wife who is non-Muslim". The interim custody order of the
High Court and proceedings were binding on the now Muslim husband as
matters arising out of the Hindu marriage registered under the Law
Reform Act. As his Hindu wife did not file for divorce, she remains "his
unconverted wife" under this law.

On April 13, 2004 Shamala once again went to the high court. This
time to seek an order that the conversion of the infants was void. As in
Chang Ah Mee, she cited the Federal Constitution (Article 12), the
Guardianship of Infants Act 1961 and the Administration of Islamic Law
(Federal Territories) Act, 1993.

The Guardianship of Infants Act for the Federal Territories differed
from that of Sabah in one aspect as it used the term "parent or
guardian" and not "both parents or a guardian" as in AMLE Sabah.

In this case the High Court ruled that only the consent of one parent
is required in the conversion to Islam of a person below 18 in the
Federal Territories.

Article 12(4) of the Federal Constitution reads "For the purposes of
cl. (3) the religion of a person under the age of eighteen years shall
be decided by his parent or guardian."

The High Court interpreted the term parent to mean father. The
equality of rights granted to both parents under the Guardianship of
Infants Act, 1961 was held inapplicable on the Muslim father.

In its judgement the High Court held the fatwa or the Mufti of the
Federal Territory as persuasive (legal term). The Mufti stated that the
father had the right to unilaterally convert the infants to Islam.

Shamala once again went to the high court on July 20, 2004 to apply
inter alia for custody, care and control of the infants. The court
awarded it with access for the father. In its judgement, it stated that
"the right of religious practice of the two infant children shall be
exercised equally by both parents" based on the Guardianship of Infants
Act 1961. This was in spite of the earlier ruling that this act does not
apply to Jeyaganesh who was now a Muslim.

The court also held that the applicable law at the time of conversion
was civil law. It even ruled that the infants were "still Hindus at the
time of conversion" and that the father should have consulted the
mother before converting the infants.

However the court explicitly cautioned the mother from "influencing
the infants' religious belief by teaching them her articles of faith or
by making them eat pork" or she would risk losing her children. The
rationale given was that the court "cannot run away from the fact that
the two infant children are now muallaf" (converts to Islam).

As the case has gained prominence various religious organizations,
human rights organizations and women's issues organizations have
registered watching briefs. En. Haris Bin Mohamed Ibrahim has registered
a watching brief on behalf of the Women's Aid Organisation, (WAO), All
Women's Action Society (AWAM), Women's Center for Change, Penang (WCC)
and Sisters In Islam (SIS).[11]
A. Kanesalingam, held watching brief for the Malaysian Consultative
Council of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism and Sikhism (MCCBCHS).
Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the Bar Council are also
holding watching briefs for this case.

The various organizations holding watching brief in this case now
call themselves loosely Article 11 after the article of the Federal
Constitution guaranteeing freedom of religion.

Conversion from Islam

Muslims who wish to convert from Islam face severe obstacles. For
Muslims, particularly ethnic Malays, the right to leave the Islamic
faith and adhere to another religion is a controversial question. The
legal process of conversion is also unclear; in practice it is very
difficult for Muslims to change their religion legally.[12]

In 1999 the High Court ruled that secular courts have no jurisdiction
to hear applications by Muslims to change religions. According to the
ruling, the religious conversion of Muslims lies solely within the
jurisdiction of Islamic courts.

The issue of Muslim apostasy
is very sensitive. In 1998 after a controversial incident of attempted
conversion, the Government stated that apostates (i.e., Muslims who wish
to leave or have left Islam for another religion) would not face
government punishment so long as they did not defame Islam after their
conversion. However, whether the very act of conversion was an "insult
to Islam" was not clarified at the time. The Government opposes what it
considers deviant interpretations of Islam, maintaining that the
"deviant" groups’ extreme views endanger national security. In 2005
international media attention focused on the Sky Kingdom sect whose founder Ayah Pin
claimed to be God, and whose members – mostly Malays – were accordingly
charged with religious "deviancy" and "humiliating Islam."[13]

In the past, the Government imposed restrictions on certain Islamic groups, primarily the small number of Shi'a. The Government continues to monitor the activities of the Shi'a minority.

In April 2000, the state of Perlis
passed a sharia law subjecting Islamic "deviants" and apostates to 1
year of "rehabilitation" (under the Constitution, religion, including
sharia law, is a state matter). Leaders of the opposition Islamic party,
PAS, have stated the penalty for apostasy — after the apostates are
given a period of time to repent and they do not repent — is death.

General interpretation about the freedom of religion as described in
the constitution in Malaysia is that a person has a right to practice
his or her religion freely. This freedom does not grant a person a right
to change his or her religion "at a whim and fancy".[16]
For example a Muslim who wants to convert to another religion must get
an explicit permission from a syariah court. The syariah courts rarely
grant such requests, except in cases where a person has actually lived
his or her whole adult life as a person of different religion, and only
wants to change the official documents to reflect this fact. The Islamic
interpretation of the situation is that only the syariah courts can
decide who is a Muslim and who is not. A person does not have such
freedom, and so cannot have a say in the judgement given in a syariah
court.

The Lina Joy
case challenged this view of the situation by taking the problem of
apostasy to the Federal Court in 2007. Lina Joy lost the case and was
denied identification as a Christian on her identification card. This
cleared the situation about the overlapping areas of jurisdiction
between the Islamic and the secular courts in Malaysia.

Apostasy under state law

As Malaysia is a federation, certain matters, such as religion, are
handled by state governments. There is subsequently some amount of
divergence between different states in the treatment of converts from
Islam.

Statistics indicate that Negeri Sembilan has the largest number of converts, with 840 applications made to officially renounce Islam in 2005, 62 of which succeeded.[citation needed] An academic[who?] has suggested that this is because Negeri Sembilan
is the only state which (officially) permits conversion. A convert must
first apply to the Syariah Court for a declaration that he or she is no
longer a Muslim; the convert will then be counseled for about a year by
a Mufti.
If, after this period, the convert still wants to convert, the judge
may permit the application. This process is unique to the state; no
other state allows Muslims to officially convert.[citation needed] In 2006, the Negeri Sembilan Court also permitted Wong Ah Kiu,
a convert from Islam to Buddhism legally known as Nyonya binti Tahir,
to be buried in the Buddhist fashion, although her conversion had not
been legally recognised while she was still alive. The case marked the
first time non-Muslims had testified in a Syariah court in Malaysia.[17]

In five states — Perak, Malacca, Sabah, Terengganu, and Pahang
— conversion is a criminal offense which can be punished by a fine or
jail term. In Pahang, convicted converts may also be punished with up to
six strokes of the cane.[18]

Lina Joy

Lina Joy, who was born Azalina Jailani, converted from Islam to
Christianity, arguing that it came under her right to freedom of
religion under Article 11 of the Constitution of Malaysia. She first
approached the National Registration Department (NRD) in February 1997,
seeking permission to change her name to Lina Joy, and also her
religious status. The application was rejected in August 1997 on the
grounds that the Syariah Court had not granted permission for her to
renounce Islam. In 1998, the NRD allowed the name change, but refused to
change the religious status on her identity card.

Joy appealed against this decision in the High Court, arguing that
she should not be subject to sharia law, having converted to
Christianity. In April 2001, Judge Datuk Faiza Tamby Chik ruled that she
could not change her religious identity, because ethnic Malays are
defined as Muslims under the Constitution. Joy then took her case to the
Court of Appeal. On 19 September 2005, the court ruled in a 2–1
majority decision against Joy. Justice Abdul Aziz and Justice Arifin
Zakaria agreed that the NRD was correct in rejecting Joy’s application
and said it was up to the Syariah Court to settle the issue (Justice
Gopal Sri Ram said it was null and void. ). Joy further appealed to the
Federal Court of Malaysia, the highest court and the court of last
resort in Malaysia.[19] The Federal Court heard the appeal in July 2006, and it was presided by the Chief Justice of MalaysiaAhmad Fairuz Abdul Halim, Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak Richard Malanjum, and Federal Court Judge Alauddin Sheriff.

On May 30, 2007, the Federal Court, in a 2–1 decision, dismissed
Joy's appeal. The Court's panel ruled that only the Syariah Court had
the power to allow Joy to remove her religious designation of Islam from
her national identity card. Chief Justice Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul
Halim and Federal Court judge Justice Alauddin Mohd Sheriff delivered
the majority decision dismissing her appeal.[20] Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak Justice Richard Malanjum dissented.

Nyonya Tahir

Revathi Massosai

Revathi Massosai is a Malaysian woman who was raised as a Hindu but
her identity card designates her as a Muslim. She has declared her
religion to be Hindu and has petitioned unsuccessfully to have the word
"Islam" removed from her identity card. Massosai married a Hindu man,
but her marriage is not recognized by the Malaysian government because
of the religion issue. Massosai was incarcerated for six months in an
Islamic re-education camp because of her attempts to renounce Islam in
favor of the Hindu religion.[21] Revathi was denied the guardianship of her new born baby and was not allowed to meet her Hindu husband.

Persecution

There have been a few high profile incidences and accounts of
persecution of people from Muslim backgrounds attempting to convert from
the Islamic faith. Some notable cases include:

Hilmy Mohd Noor

Hilmy Mohd. Noor, in his book "Circumcised Heart", describes his experiences during his detention under the Internal Security Act
of Malaysia in what he described as resulting from religious
persecution by Malaysian authorities. In the book, he also mentioned
incidences of lobbying by some Muslims in his place of employment; a
multinational oil company; to get his job terminated.[22][23]

Nur'aishah Bokhari

Nur'aishah Bokhari made a writ of habeas corpus
by statutory declaration claiming that she was detained involuntarily
by her own family members for wanting to convert out of Islam before
marrying her Roman Catholic boyfriend. She subsequently escaped and has
since left the country.[24]

Abdullah or Jeffrey

Jeffrey also known as Abdullah and Or Boon Hua, 36, made the
application on the grounds that he had not practised the Islamic
teachings since converting to the religion 14 years ago.[25]

Christian proselytization

Proselytizing

Proselytizing
of Muslims by members of other religions is not technically prohibited
by federal law, even though Muslims may proselytize. It is however
prohibited in 10 of the 13 states (i.e. excepting Penang, Sabah, Sarawak
and the Federal Territories) and can lead to lengthy jail sentences and
many strokes of the rotan
(whipping). Most Christian and a few other religious groups in Malaysia
put a standard disclaimer on literature and advertisements stating "For
non-Muslims only".[26]

Religious Materials

In 2002 the government banned the Bible in Malay (Alkitab) and in Iban (Bup Kudus). The Kudus uses the term "Allah Taala" for God. The ban has since been rescinded. Abdullah Badawi, when in office as Home Minister, claimed it was the work of an overzealous bureaucrat and he had the ban repealed personally.

Some states have laws that prohibit the use of Malay-language
religious terms such as usage of the term "Allah" for God by Christians,
but the authorities do not enforce them actively.

Distribution of other materials such as books or tapes translated into Bahasa Melayu (local Malay) or Indonesian
is also discouraged. However, Malay-language Christian materials are
available. Prior to the banning of the Bup Kudus in 2002, the
distribution of Malay-language Christian materials faced few
restrictions in East Malaysia.

Visas and other restrictions

In recent years, visas for foreign clergy no longer are restricted,
and most visas were approved during the period covered by this report.
Beginning in March 2000, representative non-Muslims were invited to sit
on the immigration committee that approves such visa requests.

Ahmadiyya persecution

In April 2009, the Selangor Islamic Religious Council of Malaysia issued a letter which forbade members of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community to offer Friday prayers
at their central mosque with immediate effect. Moreover, its failure by
the Ahmadis to comply with the terms of the order will result in
imprisonment of up to one year and/or a fine up to 3000 Malaysian ringgit. A large notice has been place outside the mosque which states Qadiani Bukan Agama Islam which translates to Qadiani [Ahmadiyyat] is not an Islamic Religion.[27][28]

Places of worship

The government generally respects non-Muslims' right of worship;
however, state governments carefully control the building of non-Muslim
places of worship and the allocation of land for non-Muslim cemeteries.
Approvals for such permits sometimes are granted very slowly.

The Catholic Society of Shah Alam had been lobbying the state government for a permit to build a church
in that city for more than 10 years. It was not until recently that the
permit was finally granted. The church opened its doors on 10 September
2005.

The new pre-planned capital of Malaysia, Putrajaya, features a grand mosque as a prominent feature of the planned community. On November 16, 2005, Archbishop Murphy Pakiam
announced that the Malaysian government had generously allocated a
parcel of land in Putrajaya to the Archdiocese of Kuala Lumpur for
building a Catholic church-run community centre. The Putrajaya Catholic
Church Building Committee was set up on October 3, 2005. According to
the committee, "The architectural planning and design will conform to
the Liturgical requirements complimenting the ambience of Putrajaya's
lush greenery and landscape. We envisage the Putrajaya church to be a
hallmark of the Catholic community in Malaysia and showcase the rich
heritage of the Malaysian Catholics."

Destruction of Hindu Temples

Approximately nine percent of the population of Malaysia are Indians, of whom nearly 90 percent are practicing Hindus. Indian settlers came to Malaysia from India in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

After a violent conflict in Penang between Hindus and Muslims in March 1998,
the government announced a nationwide review of unlicensed Hindu
temples and shrines. However, implementation was not vigorous and the
program was not a subject of public debate. In April 2006, local
authorities demolished several Hindu temples to make way for
developmental projects. Their excuse was that these temples were
unlicensed and squatting on government land.

Between April to May 2006, several Hindu temples were demolished by
city hall authorities in the country, accompanied by violence against
Hindus.[29]
On April 21, 2006, the Malaimel Sri Selva Kaliamman Temple in Kuala
Lumpur was reduced to rubble after the city hall sent in bulldozers.[30]

The president of the Consumers Association of Subang and Shah Alam in Selangor had been helping to organise efforts to stop the local authorities in the Muslim dominated city of Shah Alam
from demolishing a 107-year-old Hindu temple. The growing Islamization
in Malaysia is a cause for concern to many Malaysians who follow
minority religions such as Hinduism.[31]

On May 11, 2006, armed city hall officers from Kuala Lumpur
forcefully demolished part of a 60-year-old suburban temple that serves
more than 1,000 Hindus. The "Hindu Rights Action Force", a coalition of
several NGO's, have protested these demolitions by lodging complaints
with the Malaysian Prime Minister.[32]
Many Hindu advocacy groups have protested what they allege is a
systematic plan of temple cleansing in Malaysia. The official reason
given by the Malaysian government has been that the temples were built
"illegally". However, several of the temples are centuries old.[32]

According to a lawyer for the Hindu Rights Action Task Force, a Hindu temple is demolished in Malaysia once every three weeks.[33]

Malaysian Muslims have also grown more anti-Hindu over the years. In response to the proposed construction of a temple in Selangor, Muslims chopped off the head of a cow to protest, with leaders saying there would be blood if a temple was constructed in Shah Alam.[34]

Laws in the country, especially those concerning religious identity,
are generally slanted towards compulsion into converting to Islam.[35]

Azan

The first Islamic call to prayer or Azan (also spelt Adhan),
known as "subuh" (or dawn), occurs at around 5.30 AM with the exact
time drifting throughout the year. Most Malaysian business start work at
9 AM. Many mosques amplify the early prayer call by way of loud
speakers, and while in some cases only a few neighbouring homes are
affected, some large mosques (for example the State Mosque of Selangor
which has speakers on its minarets) have prayer calls which can be heard
in a large surrounding area.

In 2004 the Bar Council of Malaysia
journal "Infoline" carried an article which questioned the need for the
Azan as it was disturbing to non-Muslims and not needful. The article
was condemned because Azan is a religious requirement.

In December 2004, Minister of Culture, Arts and Heritage Datuk Seri Utama Dr Rais Yatim
mentioned in an interview that the Azan may be disturbing. He stated
"...the Muslim call for Subuh (dawn) prayer may disturb the sleep of
non-Muslims but they have accepted this as a fundamental part of Islam. But how loud the volume of the PA system in the mosque should be, is another matter."[36]

Excessive noise however is common matter of uneasiness among some
Malaysians because non-Muslims also often practise rituals that cause
much discomfort to others (Muslims and non-Muslims alike). Among these
are Chinese funeral processions that are often accompanied by drums and
cymbals, and other rituals not exclusive to the Chinese.

A local daily, The Star reported that a proposal by Kepong MP Dr Tan Seng Giaw to regulate the Azan so that it will not be too loud or disturb non-Muslims caused a stir in the Dewan Rakyat.[37] Muslim MPs accused him of being insensitive and Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Mohamad Nazri Abdul Aziz blasted the DAP member for allegedly trying to destroy the multi-religious tolerance in the country.

Taxation

In Malaysia, there is a rebate in income tax for money paid to the government in form of "zakat",
or the obligatory alms Muslims must give to the poor. However, money
paid to other causes in the name of other religions under similar
circumstances is given only income tax relief, and such relief is given
only if the particular beneficiary has obtained approved status from the
Malaysian Government, which is difficult in practice. Money donated to
such approved beneficiary is only deducted from the income on which the
amount of tax is based, while zakat is deducted from the amount of tax
itself. For example, suppose a person earning RM 50,000 owes a tax of RM
3,000 and donates RM 1,000 to zakat, the whole of the RM 1,000 is
directly deducted from the RM 3,000, whereas donations to other approved
beneficiary would permit only a deduction of the RM 1,000 against the
RM 50,000. The former being a tax credit and the latter being a tax
deduction.

Zakat (or tithe) monies, however, are paid by Muslims directly to
official organisations run by state governments. Receipts are issued out
and must be submitted to apply for tax relief. The zakat organisations
themselves are governed by specific Islamic rulings defining the
categories of people who qualify to receive the alms as well as the
amount to be paid out by Muslims based on their income.

In contrast, charities in Malaysia are run privately by voluntary
organisations, collecting voluntary donations from the general public,
not compulsory tithes – thus the difference in treatment by the
government.

Additionally, income tax relief granted to companies for donation
made to tax exempt charities is restricted to 5% of the agggregate
income of the company. Not all non-Muslim charities are granted tax
exempt status, it is only given to registered and approved charities,
partly to prevent abuse. There are stringent requirements to gain this
advantage. Having earned this advantage these charities are further
disadvantage in that their prospective donors are discouraged from
donating monies to these charities because the donors are given tax
relief for up to 5% of their aggregate income only.

Inheritance under Sharia law

Upon the death of a Muslim, his or her estate shall be distributed according to sharia law. This is called the Faraid or the Islamic law of Inheritance. A Muslim is allowed to make a will, called a wasiat,
but only one-third of his estate shall be disposed of according to the
will. Furthermore, the requirement under sharia law is that disposition
according to wills shall not benefit any person opposed to Islam as a
religion. This situation applies throughout Peninsula Malaysia and Sabah. In Sarawak, a Muslim testator may dispose one-third of his property to anyone he or she wishes.

Freedom of expression

Films

Movies which depict people considered prophets in Islam are generally
censored or banned as the depiction of prophets is considered "haraam" (not allowed) under Islam. One notable case was the banning of The Prince of Egypt when its producers would not accept censorship of the character Moses (Musa in Islam).

However, in a more recent case, The Passion of the Christ
was allowed, after the intervention of the Prime Minister Abdullah
Ahmad Badawi, under strict conditions restricting its viewership to
Christians with sales of tickets being carried out by various churches
and para-church organisations.

In 2004, Yasmin Ahmad's (herself a Malaysian Muslim) film Sepet
was rejected by censors who asked that scenes be removed. 10 scenes
were objectionable. Among objectionable material queried in the movie
was why the movie did not depict any attempt to convert Jason (the
Chinese non-Muslim main character) to Islam after he had fallen in love
with a Malay girl.

Print media

On December 10, 2007, Malaysian authorities banned the Malay-language section of a Catholic weekly newspaper, The Catholic Herald due to its use of the word Allah, the name for God which Christians had used for hundreds of years in the country.[38][39]
Their reasoning is that the word Allah by Christians would confuse
Malay Muslims. The Herald meanwhile, filed suit at the beginning of
December following warnings that its permit could be revoked if it did
not cease use of the word “Allah” in the Malay language section of its
newspaper.[40]
Countering the Herald's suit, the Malaysian security authorities on
December 30, warned its printing permit would not be renewed if it
continued using the word "Allah," which the government continued to say can only be used by Muslims.[41]

The Catholic Church began its challenge of the government gag order
prohibiting it from using the word “Allah” in its Herald-The Catholic
Weekly- through a judicial review. The government had earlier argued
that the church’s application is frivolous and had urged the court to
throw it out but Madam Justice Lau Bee Lan disagreed and allowed the application by the Titular Roman CatholicArchbishop of Kuala Lumpur, Datuk Murphy Pakiam,
for leave to sue the government regarding the use of the word “Allah”
to proceed. Three points that were raised in the lawsuit. The first is
for the court to declare that the government’s action in prohibiting The
Herald from using the word “Allah” is illegal and null and void. The
second is for a court declaration that the Archbishop as publisher of
The Herald is entitled to use the word “Allah” and lastly, that the
court should declare that the word “Allah” is not exclusive to the
religion of Islam.[42]

Bibles and religious literature

In January 2008, children's Christian books with illustrations of
prophets were confiscated from several bookstores around the country.[44]

In May 2008, Malaysian customs confiscated 3 Christian CDs with the
words Allah written on them from a Christian Sarawakian lady, Jill
Ireland Lawrence Bill. She is currently challenging the confiscation of
the CDs in court.[45]

In March 2010, the Malaysian Home Ministry seized 30,000 Malay bibles from a port in Kuching, Sarawak.[46]

Protests against religious freedom

On the 5th of November 2006, a group of Muslims gathered outside the
Church of Our Lady of Lourdes, Silibin, in the town of Ipoh, Perak to
protest an alleged conversion of Muslim Malays out of Islam. The
allegation was spread via a text message that claimed the church would
baptize a group of Muslim Malays. The message proved to be false as the
church celebrated only a Holy Communion service for 110 Indian children.
The message further alleged that a famous Malaysian sportsman Azhar Mansor was leaving Islam to embrace Christianity. The police had traced the message to a lady who had met Harussani Zakaria,
mufti of the state of Perak in a meeting. He has stated that the
message was to remain within the confines of the meeting but had made no
attempt to verify the authenticity of the message nor report it to the
police as converting Muslims is illegal under Malaysian law. On 17
November, Azhar Mansor declared that he had not renounced Islam,[47] and Umno president Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi said that there should now be an end to the speculation.

Destruction of Religious Property

Church Attacks

The Metro Tabernacle, an Assemblies of God church in Desa Melawati, Kuala Lumpur was set on fire on January 8, 2010.[48] While in Malacca, black paint was splashed on the outer wall of the Malacca Baptist Church in Durian Daun.[49]

Mosque/Prayer Halls (Surau) Attacks

There were also incidences of attacks being made onto Muslim places
of worship. In January 2010, two separate prayer halls (surau) in Muar
became targets of arson attacks.[50]
And as recent as August 2010, another prayer hall in Seremban was
subjected to vandalism. The prayer hall was defaced by red paint and
littered with alcohol bottles.[51]